gone votin' edit: SARKOZY PRESIDENT 53%

rachel on 7/5/2007 at 20:54

It's still more than half. More than half is a majority. That's how it works.

I'm not saying people that are against him will just shut up and go along with it. They sure as hell won't. But it is a clear cut victory, there's nothing we can say about it. And if the opposition wants to actually have a shot at trying to go against him, they'll have a lot of work to do first, because in their current situation, the PS has completely lost its way. They'll have to settle their issues once and for all (personnally I think the Socialist Party should just split into two new parties because there's no way the current ideologies can work together efficiently) and come up with a decent program, and not some vague half-assed shit that make them sound like fucking Santa Claus with presents for everyone.

jay pettitt on 7/5/2007 at 20:57

That's an awful lot of people not being represented. That's not how it's supposed to work.

Chimpy Chompy on 7/5/2007 at 21:04

And what's your suggestion for a better system?

rachel on 7/5/2007 at 21:10

Yeah, now I'm confused. I don't know what your problem is, representation per se comes from Parliament anyway, the President represents the country, not the people. And there, all parties have their say.

However, as I said, the majority willl likely be overwhelmingly UMP so it will be difficult to have leverage.

That said, it's no better in the US if you allow me. More and more people want off Iraq asap, the Dems have a clear majority at the House, yet your President keeps vetoing the bills. How is that better in terms of representing people?

jay pettitt on 7/5/2007 at 21:14

So why are the people of France out voting? What's happened is you've given some bloke (and a right twonk at that) a disproportionate amount of influence at home and abroad based on a mandate of only +-3%.

Quote Posted by "Chimpy"

And what's your suggestion for a better system?

Replace government and high positions of public office with funkadelic and representative parliamentary committees. And/or/also more direct democracy so elections matter less.

rachel on 7/5/2007 at 21:44

Quote Posted by jay pettitt

86% of the French decided they'd do that choice rather than walking their dog, it's a pretty strong number. Sure it's polarized. Sure it's split by almost 50/50. Sure that means half the population is pissed off. But at least they actually got off their asses and made a choice. Direct democracy was a proposal in the Socialist program, by the way.

If less people went to vote, the result would probably have been the same, the losing half would be equally pissed off, but the difference is that they would have no right to complain whatsoever. Here the opponents from rival parties know they still have the support of close to that other half, that give them the same legitimacy as Sarkozy's to try and go against him. Of course as I said, they have a lot of work to do before that even comes close to being realistic, but they can build up on that support anyway.
So both side have legitimately won the confidence of a good part of the population, that one of them won doesn't mean the other just vanished overnight.

I don't get it, it's the way it's always been, and in every democratic elections, no matter the country, that's more or less how it always work too.

I'm not saying it's perfect, but as Churchill said, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Of course he also said "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." :p

Myoldnamebroke on 7/5/2007 at 21:54

And he also said 'I'm content with my views on India, I don't need them changed by some bloody Indian' and indirectly contributed to the deaths of 4 million people in the subcontinent.

R Soul on 7/5/2007 at 22:05

Quote Posted by raph

they would have no right to complain whatsoever.

Even if they choose not to vote because none of the candidates represent their views?

rachel on 7/5/2007 at 22:23

Well we do have that problem here that those who put a blank vote are counted just like those who do not vote, which is a real shame. It's a completely different thing, and I think indeed that the distinction should be made in the recounts, that way we'd know who are those who refuse to chose and we'd have a good idea of their number.

However the people I was referring to are the ones that do not even care to put a blank vote. If you can't be bothered to do just that, to say that you refuse to chose because you don't recognize yourself in any of the candidates, then what right do you have to complain about the winner? My point is if you don't care, then don't care, just don't come bitching afterwards.

My opinion on this, to be honest, is that voting should be made compulsory. That way everyone goes, everyone is forced to pay attention, and blanks are recognized and counted. Everyone afterwards can complain about how it went and explain their decisions, discuss, or whatever. Point is they'll be represented in the final count. Thats what it's all about.

MONB, the second quote and the smiley were there for a reason. Obviously not everything he said or did was always shiny good or right.

SD on 7/5/2007 at 22:59

Quote Posted by raph

My opinion on this, to be honest, is that voting should be made compulsory.

Being a liberal, I am dead against this. The right to vote also encompasses the right not to vote. I don't agree with forcing people to vote under the pain of fine or jailtime.